Bukit Panjang LRT ( Source : blog.smrt.com.sg)

SMRT has just issued its response in regards to a passenger’s experience involving a run-away light-rail train at Bukit Panjang LRT line (BPLRT) that sped past three stations on Thursday last week (28 July).

Ms Jacqueline Bong had earlier shared with TOC on how the train that she and her friend at Sengar station,  sped past three stations without stopping, failing to respond to the emergency button and how the train was stopped only after a female passenger managed to get to the control station via her mobile phone.

Read: LRT sped past three stations non-stop with passengers at Bukit Panjang LRT line

Ms Bong wrote a letter to SMRT and subsequently posted the same message on SMRT’s Facebook page after being told that she will only be contacted 7 days later.

In her letter, she recounted the incident and asked the following questions:

  1. Why is the emergency button not working?
  2. Why no one notices the train moving non-stop till 4th station?
  3. Why was the emergency phone also not working at that moment?
  4. Why the train moved non-stop with much faster speed as usual?
  5. How frequent SMRT checks the emergency button and phone to ensure its functionality?

She also wrote that everyone were so scared especially when they saw another train ahead and that they can’t imagine what will happen if they couldn’t get the train to stop.

In its Facebook clarification on the incident, SMRT wrote that the BPLRT train skipped Jelapang station at 11.51 am due to a fault on the train’s antenna that ensures trains stop accurately at each station. The train was hence not able to pick up the signal to stop at the next three stations.

It said that it has confirmed that the train did not exceed 55 km per hour during this incident and assured commuters that BPLRT trains operate at a speed range of 30 – 55 km per hour depending on the gradient and turn of each section of the BPLRT network. It also added that the system is also equipped with an independent Automatic Train Protection System that ensures safe separation between trains.

Ms Bong had recounted in her experience that when her friend failed to stop the train by pressing the emergency button, she went to the other side of the cabin to press the emergency button with all her might but the train still did not stop.

In regards to Ms Bong’s account of pressing the emergency button, SMRT clarified that the button can only be activated when a train comes to a complete stop at a station, to prevent it from moving off again.

However, Ms Bong feels that SMRT’s explanation is nonsensical as the button clearly had written emergency stop button.

SMRT noted that its BPLRT Operations Control Centre (OCC) received separate alerts from commuters through the station intercom, the train’s emergency phone and through the OCC hotline.

It went on to state that an automatic alert is immediately triggered to the OCC when either the station intercom or the train’s emergency phone is used. When its OCC responded to the call from the station intercom, the call from the train’s emergency phone was put on queue. It noted that its OCC also received a call from a commuter’s mobile phone at the same time. When the OCC subsequently responded to the call from the train’s emergency phone, no response was received.

TOC asked Ms Bong for clarification on the matter and according to her recollection, there had been no attempts to reach the passengers.

SMRT wrote that its OCC imposed a speed code restriction, which allowed the train to stop before the Phoenix station and said that its staff boarded the train and drove it to Phoenix station where commuters alighted safely at the platform.

This is contrary to what Ms Bong recall, as there had been no SMRT staff at the station awaiting their arrival or to check on the status of the passengers.

The train was later withdrawn to the depot for further checks.

When asked if SMRT had answered her questions, Ms Bong said, “What can I do if it doesn’t answer my questions?”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

组屋外围结构脱落 危及安全住户担忧

昨日(6月18日),网民叶若诗分享的脸书贴文引起网民关注政府组屋的安全隐忧:她所居住的巴西礼21街270座组屋,其中一副顶楼外墙脱落坠下,所幸未砸伤居民。 “当时我听到一声如雷般的巨响,但并不知道是组屋的建筑结构脱落。直到我的邻居指给我看,我才发现地面上的碎片。”她说,女儿在就寝前也受到巨响惊吓而大哭不止。 虽然未有居民受伤,但叶若诗希望她的贴文能提醒大家,“拍下这一幕是为了再三提醒孩子们~千万千万别在组屋楼底下窗下走” ! 该组屋有20年楼龄,叶若诗说,居民被告知该组屋将进行外围提升工程,但她认为上述事件也不应发生。管理单位约在当天下午5时前就已清理碎片,并围起现场禁止居民踏入。 不过,这并不是首个政府组屋建筑结构脱落的意外事件。2016年9月26日,淡滨尼街23巷的4层楼组屋,走廊外的洋灰遮阳棚结构脱落;不到一个月,循环路51号老组屋的外墙脱落。 2017年4月,印度士路一座40年组屋掉落一根三米长的钢条。其中一名住户Gary Lim说,该区有很多乐龄人士,这些建材从高处坠落,老人家根本来不及躲闪。 疑保养失当,巴西立组屋危机四伏 政府组屋的结构维护是由市镇会负责,巴西立组屋属巴西立-榜鹅市会管辖范围,后者也涉及其他的组屋保养问题。 在2016年5月,一名77岁老人,在巴西立21街组屋因为电梯失误导致意外,撒手人寰。该老人本想将电动轮椅倒退出电梯,然而未察觉电梯比地面高出25公分,结果轮椅失去平衡翻覆,老人因头骨击中地面碎裂,伤重不治。 5个月后,巴西立第4通道480号组屋,电梯天花板脱落击中36岁的青年亚兹、他63岁的父亲和两岁小孩。亚兹说,所幸他比父亲高1.84公分,他的头部被砸伤,替父亲和儿子吸收掉了天花板大部分的冲击力。 亚兹说,他的儿子因电梯里的意外受惊吓,之后进电梯都有恐惧感,一家还要花费128新元的医药费。…

Lee Hsien Yang questions AGC’s need to waste public resources on a private matter

On 10 January, Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) took to his personal Facebook…

Post-GE 2011: A Watershed Election – For Good or For Worse?

~ By Jackson Tan ~ The 2011 General Election was viewed as…

Police issues conditional warning to Preetipls and Subhas Nair for controversial video, E-Pay is off the hook

In the most recent development of the racist advertisement/video saga, social media…